I searched for a previous topic on this but cant find where its gone so apologies if i missed something and you dont want this discussed here. Altho i do think this this worth watching since it sheds alot of new light on what really happened on the Mavi Marmara.

SXrzF0IOQYE&
Nfo91FQVr7M&

1980s

18 Aug 10,, 19:24

And here is an opposing perspective to the program: Palestine Solidarity Campaign (http://www.palestinecampaign.org/index7b.asp?m_id=1&l1_id=4&l2_id=24&Content_ID=1445)

While i lean slightly to the side of the activists on board given some of the points raised in that link (tho not towards the Islamist activists) i have no actual stance on the overall situation myself. Both the documentary and the issues raised against it put forward strong cases, its difficult to see which is more in the 'right'.

bigross86

18 Aug 10,, 19:46

* Why was Israel's ‘right' to board the ship presumed throughout the programme?

Because Israel did have the right to board the ship, as given by many international treaties Turkey is signatory to, including the Helsinki Accords

* Why did the programme completely fail to mention that Israel's siege of Gaza has been declared illegal by the UN? The assumption was made that Israel has the right to blockade Gaza, while the motives of those attempting to break an illegal blockade were questioned.

Because the blockade is supported by Egypt as well as by Israel, with the backing of the US. Besides, as a general rule, the UN is slightly skewed when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Moreover, there's absolutely no economic emergency or human rights crisis in Gaza. The only things not being allowed in are arms and other thing that can aid Hamas. Israel ships in hundreds of tons weekly of medical aid, food and other materiel, while letting out medical emergencies to Israeli hospitals

* Why did Jane Corbin not mention the bombs, rockets and white phosphorus dropped on Gaza by Israel during Operation Cast Lead over a three week period in 2008/9, killing 1,400 people? She did, however, mention the ‘thousands of rockets' fired from Gaza into Israel, but did not say over what time period.

Because that too was a war started by Hamas, where Israel did all it could to minimize casualties, but when the militants hide amongst the civilian population, wear civilian clothing and use innocent children as human shields, there will be casualties. And yes, all of the above have been proven and caught on video.

* Why was the Israeli evidence of how and when they killed the activists unquestioned? Activists who were on the top deck of the ship say the first person was killed - shot from a helicopter - before any Israeli had even landed on the deck. However, none of these activists were interviewed.

Because it's really hard to kill someone from a flying helicopter with a 9mm pistol, even harder with a paintball marker. Sure, they could have had machine guns or rifles in the choppers, but do you honestly think that between the first and second assaults they wouldn't have used them to clear the decks, if even firing a couple bursts into the air? The Naval Commando's were caught unawares, they aren't idiots.

* Activists shot footage of the Israeli attack, but their cameras, laptops and other recording equipment was taken by the Israelis and has not been returned. Why was this point not raised during the programme, or put to the Israeli spokespeople?

A: There was footage from the attackers that was used in the recording itself. B: The material is part of an ongoing investigation. Kind of pointless to release it to the public, no?

* Why were the autopsy reports - which reveal that each victim was shot several times at close range, in a way that can't constitute self-defence - not used, or even mentioned?

Why can that not constitute self defense? Most soldiers that I know will shoot 3 times with a pistol: Twice to center mass and once to the head. Others will just double-tap the head or the chest, depending on distance. Besides, it mentioned that 9 people were shot and killed by Israeli soldiers. Does it make a difference how many times they were shot?

* Why was there no footage of the Israeli assaults on the activists - which led to nine deaths?

Because they were done belowdeck, as can be seen in the video where the soldiers belowdeck start screaming that they're getting live fire shot at them. The soldiers carried paintball markers and 9mm pistols, not video cameras.

* Jane Corbin never questions the use of the word ‘terrorists' to describe the activists, or their alleged willingness to attack the commandoes. Why does she then fail to examine why there were no fatalities or serious injuries among the Israeli commandoes, when these ‘terrorists' were so willing to attack?

Two of the soldiers sustained gunshot wounds, one sustained a head wound and was knocked unconscious by being thrown over to a lower deck. There is video and documentation of a soldier getting stabbed. Serious enough injuries?

* Why were there no interviews with any of the British activists on board the ship, or with any of the journalists who were on board?

You'll have to ask BBC for an answer to that one. Not that it's really that relevant or germane. Does it make a difference where the activist was from? As for the journalists POV, you can find it in the articles that they wrote.

* Why was it not pointed out that the IDF has admitted doctoring the audio footage used in the programme, that the BBC claims was broadcast from the captain's deck?

I haven't seen or heard anything like that. If you can find me actual, relevant, verified proof of that I'd be much obliged

2DREZQ

18 Aug 10,, 21:22

If it looks like a deliberate setup for confrontation, and it sounds like a deliberate setup for confrontation, and it smells like a deliberate setup for confrontation, and it walks like a deliberate setup for confrontation;

What do you think it is?

I'm no particular fan of Isreal (Like 'em better than their neighbors, though.), but this was so obviously an attempt to provoke an over-response from them that it is laughable to characterize it as anything else. When the Commandos didn't come in with guns blazing, (as desired) the "activists" had to take it to the next level to FORCE the use of deadly force. Soldiers have the right to defend themselves, which they did.
Even were that NOT the case; When you saunter in to a politically charged situation where terrorism and violence are commonplace, you shouldn't be surprised if you get your a$$ shot off, whether you had it coming or not.